Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No.i336 of 1982, decided on 17th January, 198

‑‑‑S.115 and O.VI, r.17‑‑Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art. 9‑‑Amendment of pleadings‑‑Order disallowing permission to amend pleadings being case decided "within meaning of S.115 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908," held, could be challenged in revisional jurisdiction Order passed by Additional District Judge who had jurisdiction to uphold or set aside order of Trial Court could not be without lawful authority, if it was based on sound and cogent reasons and while passing such order he had applied his mind to legal and factual aspects of matter.

Iqbal Ahmad Malik for Petitioner.

This is a petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981, whereby Zahoor Hussain Shah, petitioner wants this Court to declare the order, dated 4‑11‑1982 passed by the Additional District Judge, Muzaffargarh, respondent No.2, to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

2. The facts giving rise to this petition in brief are that Zahoor Hussain Shah, petitioner herein filed a suit for possession by pre‑emption against Elahi Bakhsh, respondent No.1. The suit was contested; written statement was filed; issues were framed and the petitioner concluded his evidence when an application for amendment of written statement was moved by Elahi Baksh respondent to include therein the plea of being tenant over the suit land. This application was, however, dismissed by the trial Court on 31‑5‑1982. Feeling aggrieved Elahi Bakhsh respondent filed revision before the District Judge which was entrusted to the Additional District Judge who, vide his order, dated 4‑11‑1982 while accepting the revision allowed the amendment prayed for. Hence this petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits 'that since the trial Court had disallowed the amendment for cogent reasons, it was not a fit case for interference in revision. Furthermore, the order disallowing the application for permission to amend the written statement was not a "case decided" and as such the revision did not lie against that order.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find that it is now well‑settled that an order disallowing the permission to amend the pleadings is a "case decided" within the meaning of section 115, C .P. C . I further find that the learned Additional District Judge, who had jurisdiction to uphold or set aside the order of the trial Court, dated 31‑5‑1982 has applied his mind to the legal and factual aspects of the matter and has given sound and cogent reasons for the acceptance of the application and as such it cannot be said that the order, dated 4‑11‑1982 of the learned Additional District Judge was passed without lawful authority.

5. Before parting with the judgment, needless to add that since the Petitioner has concluded his evidence before the amendment of the written statement, the trial Court would afford him an opportunity to rebut the evidence of the respondent on the point of his tenancy over the suit land.

For what has been stated above, there being no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed in limine.

H.B.T. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.